Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's go with that then; show us the $3,000 savings, please.
Sure.
Quote:
The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, commissioned a report from the consulting company Hewitt Associates that found that the legislation "could potentially reduce that trend line by more than $3,000 per employee, to $25,435" with respect to insurance premiums. It also stated that the legislation "could potentially reduce the rate of future health care cost increases by 15% to 20% when fully phased in by 2019". The group cautioned that this is all assuming that the cost-saving government pilot programs both succeed and then are wholly copied by the private market, which is uncertain.
Quote:
The CBO report states: "The analysis does not incorporate potential effects of the proposal on the level or growth rate of spending for health care ... from the development and dissemination of less costly ways to deliver care that would be encouraged by the proposal. The impact of such 'spillover' effects on health care spending and health insurance premiums is difficult to quantify precisely, but the effect on premiums in 2016 would probably be small."
But that doesn't mean those provisions should be dismissed, said Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research an Ethics and George Mason University.
While the CBO lacked the necessary proof to forecast the effects of programs that have never happened before, the potential savings from reorganizing the health care system are significant, he said. Assuming those changes occur, the $3,000 figure cited by Obama is a "pretty reasonable projection," Nichols said. Just don't expect those changes to affect your premiums any time soon. Some of them may be 10 to 20 years down the road, he said.
Yeah, that's a funny one. Buried well down in the report is this gem;
Quote:
First, none of the forecasts suggests premiums will be going down. Rather, the Hewitt report talks about premiums going up dramatically over the next decade, just not as much as if proper reforms are instituted.
Another example of the infamous liberal thought process wherein an INCREASE in cost, because it's a smaller increase than previously projected, is deemed a reduction.
Let's go with that then; show us the $3,000 savings, please.
Most people who had an interest in the subject, paid attention to what was said. Obama said “could save families $2,500 in the coming years.â€. Will it? We don't know yet, time will tell. It could, but depends on how well the anticipated savings work out, how obstructionist the GOP will continue to be, etc. Last estimate I heard was around 2019 for most savings to be realized. But I know, it is so much more fun to misstate what was said, huh?
Most people who had an interest in the subject, paid attention to what was said. Obama said “could save families $2,500 in the coming years.”. Will it? We don't know yet, time will tell. It could, but depends on how well the anticipated savings work out, how obstructionist the GOP will continue to be, etc. Last estimate I heard was around 2019 for most savings to be realized. But I know, it is so much more fun to misstate what was said, huh?
Did you not read the post to which you are responding? I never misstated it. I accepted that President Obama made the "misstatement" and asked for a discussion on what you guys insist he meant.
Another example of the infamous liberal thought process wherein an INCREASE in cost, because it's a smaller increase than previously projected, is deemed a reduction.
It's actually called finance. Businesses makes decisions everyday to take an action today that will result in lessening costs in the future.
I realize that you have an ideological interest to marginalize any benefit because it has to do with Obama but if something will cost me $8,000 in the future if I do nothing but only $5,000 in the future if I take an action, that's a savings, even if that something costs me $3,000 today.
Agreed, 100%. Seem the only path to GOP victory short of hacking it is to have a ignorant uninformed base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Here's who the the GOP has alienated, seemingly without a care: blacks, gays, latinos, Muslims, women, students, seniors (not listening to Fox), unions, blue-collar workers, firefighters and public-sector workers, environmentalists (or those who care), - so who is left to rocket them into office? How can they win with support from whomever is left over?
So how do they win an election?
* They have the major media, internet trolls, big money (Carl Rove, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, the Kochs, Wall Street billionaires), behind them.
* Taking over the corporate "news" media to dole out misinformation and fear-based rhetoric.
* Purging the voter rolls in Democratic districts.
* Requiring picture I.D. then closing down or restricting DMV hours in Democratic areas and expanding DMV hours in Republican areas.
* Other dirty tricks. Mailings to residents of Democratic areas with incorrect dates, times, or other misinformation.
* Possibly hacking into Republican-owned unverifiable electronic voting machines and flipping votes. It only takes $26 to hack voting machine - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com
Be aware that there are paid trolls everywhere trying to sabotage health care, jobs, and any program the Dems come up with. Mitch McConnell said as much, and they are carrying through with their threat to destroy this presidency at all costs.
They may very well succeed with the above tactics.
It's actually called finance. Businesses makes decisions everyday to take an action today that will result in lessening costs in the future.
I realize that you have an ideological interest to marginalize any benefit because it has to do with Obama but if something will cost me $8,000 in the future if I do nothing but only $5,000 in the future if I take an action, that's a savings, even if that something costs me $3,000 today.
That must be some of the "free stuff" Romney is warning his money minions about what "those people" want.
Let's go with that then; show us the $3,000 savings, please.
For starters, those $1.4 billion in health care premium checks coming in the next month or so. Next, for me, this past April was the first premium renewal that my health insurer did NOT increase premium for the year. ZERO increase. That with added coverage mandated by ACA.
Guess what comes next, it someone's plan received one of these premium rebates that plan will see a premium reduction becuz of that ACA provision that mandates the allowable overhead insurers can spend.
Once more ppl are insure in the coming years the cost of the dwindling pool uninsured will be spread over a growing pool of insured and the uninsured burden will be lessened and premium will go down, becuz of the overhead limit.
I caught part of a report yesterday on cspan that said Medicare costs are down 16% in the last two years.
Yeah, that's a funny one. Buried well down in the report is this gem;
Another example of the infamous liberal thought process wherein an INCREASE in cost, because it's a smaller increase than previously projected, is deemed a reduction.
If I'm renting an apartment now for $500/month and rents are about to take a jump in my city such that my rent is going to jump to $700/month. I can either continue to rent and end up with a $700 a month payment - or I can buy a house and get a $600/month house payment - which would YOU suggest I take.
Leaving aside the tax implications, the cost of ownership, etc - both reflect an INCREASE in my costs but one option is a smaller increase than the other.
Medical costs ARE going up (no matter what) - it's just a matter of HOW MUCH. If one option means a smaller increase than another, then it makes sense to go with the SMALLER INCREASE because YES, it does (in the long run) represent a SAVINGS.
(And I'd be willing to bet that YOU have used that VERY SAME argument to convince a current renter to BUY - and why not? It's a VALID argument).
For starters, those $1.4 billion in health care premium checks coming in the next month or so. Next, for me, this past April was the first premium renewal that my health insurer did NOT increase premium for the year. ZERO increase. That with added coverage mandated by ACA.
Guess what comes next, it someone's plan received one of these premium rebates that plan will see a premium reduction becuz of that ACA provision that mandates the allowable overhead insurers can spend.
Once more ppl are insure in the coming years the cost of the dwindling pool uninsured will be spread over a growing pool of insured and the uninsured burden will be lessened and premium will go down, becuz of the overhead limit.
I caught part of a report yesterday on cspan that said Medicare costs are down 16% in the last two years.
Please explain to us how this will work. People who do not have health insurance are going to be mandated to purchase it. If, as so many claim, the reason is that they cannot afford it, do you really think they are suddenly going to have the money to afford it? No, they aren't. So they will be assessed with a tax, that they cannot afford to pay, and which will never be collected, and they will be "covered" by the government, yes? And who pays for that coverage? Why, it's the people who CAN afford health insurance, who will have to obligation to pay for not only their own, and their family's, insurance, but also for their share of all those who are covered without paying.
I'm not seeing how this is supposed to reduce my cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
